Slashdot Mirror


A High-Bandwidth Interplanetary Connection

sciencehabit writes "A new study suggests that by twisting laser light, scientists could pack enough information into interplanetary beams to speed up extraterrestrial communications to the multi-gigabit level. The pulses would be passed through a hologram or multimode optical fiber, which twists the light. On the other side, a telescope would focus the light and a second hologram, or fiber would decode the signal. That could allow much more data-rich communication between, say, Earth and probes on Mars, the researchers say. Closer to home, the approach could provide Internet links of 100 gigabits per second."

70 of 99 comments (clear)

  1. Size does matter... by RandomFactor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > Hemmati and his colleagues estimate that receiving OAM data from a transmitter as distant as the sun would require a kilometer-wide telescope.

    Sounds like even someplace closer like Mars is going to take an impractically large receiver.

    --
    --- Mercutio was right.
    1. Re:Size does matter... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's huge. Arecibo is only 0.3 km.

    2. Re:Size does matter... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      More than 50% of the time mars is not closer to earth than sun.

    3. Re:Size does matter... by Olix · · Score: 1

      If you don't have to worry about gravity, making really big receivers and transmitters isn't much of an issue.

    4. Re:Size does matter... by Quietlife2k · · Score: 1

      Is a relay via the moon not possible ?

      We'd not have so much of a problem with size up there, and the link from here to the moon would require smaller telescopes, with at least one at each pole.

    5. Re:Size does matter... by lennier1 · · Score: 1

      But at a size like stuff like statics is on a completely different level. Imagine the stresses on such a huge networked frame during something as unseemingly as a fine-adjustment of the array's rotation. Ass ume a decade of use and these things develop into a serious factor.

    6. Re:Size does matter... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I think an Lagrange point would be a better choice than the moon. The moon has too much gravity. But, as was pointed out earlier, rotating the antenna (telescope) would be a bit problem, even there. The lighter the structure, the less twist it could take.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    7. Re:Size does matter... by Boiling_point_ · · Score: 1

      Sounds like even someplace closer like Mars is going to take an impractically large receiver.

      The Sun is roughly the same distance from Earth all the time, because we have a roughly circular orbit around it.

      Mars is sometimes closer to us when our orbital position around the Sun is on the same side as Mars, however due to the different year lengths on Mars and Earth, sometimes it's much further away on the far side of the Sun to us.

      --
      "If you create user accounts, by default, they will have an account type of Administrator with no password." KB Q293834
  2. You serious? by jmd_akbar · · Score: 2

    We need faster speeds here down on earth before we think of these "multi gigabit" speeds for interplanetary communications..

    --
    Nothing here... So... SHOOO!!!
    1. Re:You serious? by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why? How does thinking about "multi gigabit" speeds for interplanetary communications conflict with you getting a faster connection to Pirate Bay?

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:You serious? by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

      We need faster speeds here down on earth before we think of these "multi gigabit" speeds for interplanetary communications..

      We HAVE faster speeds here on Earth. Blame your ISP for not utilizing what their network is capable of, preferring to intentionally cripple their services so they can charge through the nose for faster connections. But all that is really totally irrelevant because this Earth-Mars link is not in any way intended for consumer use.

    3. Re:You serious? by Idbar · · Score: 1

      I'm crossing my fingers. Hopefully, I'd be able to get 100G first from a martian ISP than the crappy US ISPs. And furthermore, I hope is not going to be capped by the ISP and government regulations or tapped **IA.

    4. Re:You serious? by Lord+Lode · · Score: 1

      If they send people to Mars, they better still be able to play in multiplayer with their friends on Earth! Not to mention Youtube.

    5. Re:You serious? by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      Of course you're joking, but it's not an all-around impossible idea.

      Bandwidth? Check. Ping? Not so much. Or rather, too much. Or something. The bandwidth being high doesn't lower the latency any of course.

      "The communications delay between Earth and Mars can vary between five and twenty minutes depending upon the relative positions of the two planets. As a consequence of this, if a robot on the surface of Mars were to encounter a problem, its human controllers would not be aware of it until at least five minutes, and possibly up to twenty minutes, later; it would then take a further five to twenty minutes for instructions to travel from Earth to Mars." from this Wikipedia article on the speed of light might be useful for someone.

      So chess between Mars and Earth? Sure. Fantasy football? Sure. Half-life or Supreme Commander? Not so much.

      YouTube? Well, queue up a bunch of them to stream and start streaming each one five to twenty minutes before it needs to start playing. The initial wait will be a bit inconvenient, but there's no reason with that much bandwidth you couldn't stream multiple videos simultaneously while waiting.

    6. Re:You serious? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Afaict we have 10 gigabit (maybe more now) through a single optical transciver and we can combine multiple such links on a single fiber through WDM and a typical cable contains many fibers.

      The big issue with end user connections is not technical it's financial, upgrading all the connections to end users is very expensive and most users probablly aren't prepared to pay all that much more for a faster connection. So the incentive for providers to upgrade is low. Further any sensible last mile communications provider knows that the longer they hold off upgrading the better the technology they upgrade to will be.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    7. Re:You serious? by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Why? How does thinking about "multi gigabit" speeds for interplanetary communications conflict with you getting a faster connection to Pirate Bay?

      (sarcasm) Since the government refuses to confirm or deny the existence of alien life forms, this is just a waste of money that should be going to the war effort. (/sarcasm)

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    8. Re:You serious? by paulo.casanova · · Score: 1

      I would imagine if we had serious computing business in Mars we would have some sort of caching running there :) Like, full replication... :) Just an idea, of course...

    9. Re:You serious? by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      Sending people to Mars does not imply large-scale long-term colonization.Serious business wouldn't be built to keep a handful of researchers connected to the homeworld. If there was sufficient demand for content, though, sure you could expect both caching much of Earth's content on Mars as well as a large cache on Earth of content from Mars.

  3. Ping times by s_p_oneil · · Score: 3, Informative

    They're going to have to do something about the terrible ping times. Its orbit is about 1.5AU, so when it's close to the Earth, the round-trip ping time will be about 8 minutes. When it's on the opposite side of the sun, it'll be about 40 minutes.

    1. Re:Ping times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      After they're done with this, I'm sure they'll start working on getting around that pesky ole' theory of relativity...

    2. Re:Ping times by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Bit more than that - the sun would blind any attempts at communication when mars is directly opposite. You're going to have to either settle for being out of contact for a short time, or bounce the signal from somewhere else. The other inner planets arn't very suited to building a communication station, so probably a router at earth-sun L4/5 point.

      Eight minutes means we'd have to dump this 'stream everything' internet and start actually downloading files before watching them again.

    3. Re:Ping times by pushing-robot · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, the latency on wireless connections always sucks. If we plan on being on Mars a lot, we should just go ahead and string a cable.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    4. Re:Ping times by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

      I was going to say, "Yeah but latency would S.....U.....C.....K."

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    5. Re:Ping times by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      No it does not. Netflix-Mars would just copy all their data from Netflix-Earth once a $time-interval and the Martians would just stream from Netflix-Mars.

    6. Re:Ping times by Quietlife2k · · Score: 1

      I might be wrong, but surely it's a 4 SECOND ping time ?

      Earth to Mars furthest distance 401 million km.

      Speed of light 299 million km per second.

      Round trip time 4 SECONDS.

      Ok so at this distance the sun is smack bang in the way, but from all other viable viewing points the distance is less than the 401 million km used above.

    7. Re:Ping times by TheLink · · Score: 1

      But you're proposing planet scale copying! Copying is illegal!

      The Corporations unwritten constitutional right to profits must be protected!

      --
    8. Re:Ping times by cranq · · Score: 1

      Speed of light is 299,792,458 metres per second, not km per second.

      --
      Regards, your friendly neighbourhood cranq
    9. Re:Ping times by Dwonis · · Score: 2

      Speed of light is 299,792,458 metres per second, not km per second.

      Sure, but by the time these machines get built, Moore's Law will have sped it up by the necessary amount.

    10. Re:Ping times by Quietlife2k · · Score: 1

      Aww shucks got my decimals in the wrong place :-(

      You are correct my apologies.

    11. Re:Ping times by TheLink · · Score: 1

      No. Speed of light is only about 300 million metres per second ( 299 792 458) or 300000km/sec.

      http://www.google.com/search?q=speed+of+light

      So round trip time is 44.6 minutes
      http://www.google.com/search?&q=401+million+km++*+2+%2F+speed+of+light

      In comparison the Sun is about 8 light minutes away.

      The speed of light is so slow that even latency is an issue for intercontinental undersea links, and worse for the satellite links (which can have latency in the order of seconds).

      --
    12. Re:Ping times by TheLink · · Score: 1

      BTW yes I know geostationary satellites are 40000km away and the theoretical round trip ping latency via pure satellite links is thus 280ms * 2 . But in practice it sure seems worse than that ;).

      --
    13. Re:Ping times by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's easier than that, just send a DVD or two to mars ever year and they'd be good to go. Plus, they can raise rates periodically because you ought to be grateful that they're letting you have all but season 3 of the Dukes of Hazard by stream.

    14. Re:Ping times by hitmark · · Score: 2
      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    15. Re:Ping times by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      the spins of earth and mars should present no problem just as long as we remember to unwind the cable periodically, I see no big obstacles to your idea. We can save money by only unwinding the Mars end and giving the cable a big up and down shake to undue the earth end.

    16. Re:Ping times by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised no one has discussed TCP window size. The TCP stack on both ends will need a huge amount of RAM, and even with that, I'm not sure how they are actually going to get the throughput needed if we're talking TCP/IP.

      Perhaps UDP or some non-IP method. Remember, bandwidth != throughput.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    17. Re:Ping times by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

      Seems like DSL with Bell.

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    18. Re:Ping times by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Any high speed interplanetary connection is going to either have to put up with occasional data loss (how occasional can be influenced to some extent by forward error correction but that comes at a price in bandwidth and still doesn't really provide a soloution for block outages) or have lots of storage for retransmissions.

      TCP is not appropriate, it was designed to deal with connections of relatively low latency and unknown bandwidth by slow-starting. On a high latency connection of known bandwidth that is just plain stupid. Also with such high ping times keeping the retransmit data in a ram buffer rather than on cheaper disk or flash is also crazy.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    19. Re:Ping times by Dadoo · · Score: 1

      They're going to have to do something about the terrible ping times.

      I'm guessing IP is out, since the latency will be horrendous. They'll probably have to bring back a mechanism like UUCP, where your files get dropped off in a temporary storage server. There, they'll be placed in a queue to be transmitted to another planet, and you'll be emailed, once transmission is complete.

      --
      Sit, Ubuntu, sit. Good dog.
    20. Re:Ping times by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Except for the glowing ball that sometimes stands between the two...

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  4. Re:Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids by seantide · · Score: 1

    Article: That could allow much more data-rich communication between, say, Earth and probes on Mars, the researchers say.

  5. Optical is taking a long time... by mbone · · Score: 1

    There is as yet no interplanetary communication by Laser. It's all done by radio at present. The first flight demonstration of Laser communication will be on the LADEE Lunar Orbiter. That's scheduled to be launched in 2012. I am sure that optical communications will eventually be used, though. Using reasonably sized telescopes, gigabit per second communication across interplanetary distances should be possible using conventional techniques, even if OAM is not actually practical. (Of course, the weather would be an issue, as laser signals can't go through clouds.)

    Given that more or less the same thing could have been and was said about deep space optical communications in the mid-1980's, all I can say is that it sure is taking a long time to implement it.

    1. Re:Optical is taking a long time... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Is there that much demand for higher bandwidth, outside of earth-sats? The only machines further out than that are scientific probes, and all they need to send back is telemetry and the occasional photograph.

    2. Re:Optical is taking a long time... by mbone · · Score: 1

      As I posted above, most scientific probes now are data-rate limited. They could acquire more data, but they can't send it back, due to data-rate and Earth-side antenna-availability limitations. So, yes, there is a strong demand for higher bandwidth.

    3. Re:Optical is taking a long time... by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Well... if they had more bandwith, they could send more than the occasional photo.

      Those landers on titan only could send 10Mbyte or so during the decent.

      New horizons has a multi-GB solid state drive. It will fill it up during Pluto flyby (limiting the amount of data it can aquire), and will then spend _months_ transmitting it back a modem speeds.

      With a real time data link, those probes could have / would be able to transfer orders of magnitude more data back home.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  6. Throttling by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 4, Funny

    Closer to home, the approach could provide Internet links of 100 gigabits per second

    Throttled down by your ISP to 24 megabits per second

    1. Re:Throttling by nine-times · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... with a 768kbps upload rate.

    2. Re:Throttling by Warwick+Allison · · Score: 1

      Only after you go over your 1TB cap, which would take... oh... sorry, too late.

  7. At least... by bytethese · · Score: 1

    They'll be able to stay occupied downloading music and porn quicker.

  8. A ship full of hard disks? by craznar · · Score: 2

    Should give limitless bandwidth.

    Latency of course is the factor here.

    --
    EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
    1. Re:A ship full of hard disks? by ffejie · · Score: 1

      But, in twenty years, when someone actually needs this stuff on Mars, you'll be looking at $0.10 GB to get it up there, even assuming NASA or the like has to pay for a special "ruggedized" harddrive that is guaranteed to work in a different atmosphere. Storage costs will drop.

      I think the real problem is getting it back. Right now, probes have a really slow data connection to send back data. Assuming we can blast off tons of harddrives to them doesn't help that side of the equation.

      Also, I was going to make a witty comment about latency, but a few others beat me to the punch (no gaming on Mars), using "sneakerNET" to shuttle things back and forth gives possible the worst latency of all: years.

      --
      Disagreeing with me does not mean you get to mod me troll.
    2. Re:A ship full of hard disks? by xkuehn · · Score: 1

      Too true. The Martian IPBM system would wreak havoc with this.

    3. Re:A ship full of hard disks? by Hamsterdan · · Score: 2

      Only problem is by the time it gets there, the hard drive will have bad sectors in true Seagate fashion

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
  9. That's great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's great, but the roaming charges will kill you.

    1. Re:That's great! by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I thought the bigger problem was that people were headed to Mars to avoid Arnold...

  10. HIgh bandwidth is easy... by mark-t · · Score: 1

    It's the latency that's the real killer.

    If you want to just talk bandwidth... which is how much data can be sent from one location to another within a unit of time, then the bandwidth of a cargo van hauling a truckload of flash ram sticks across the country has, by many orders of magnitude, a higher bandwidth than any sort of technology that is built on electronic communication infrastructure.

    When it becomes possible to, from earth, ping an orbiter around mars in under a second... *THEN* we will have really done something (okay... we may have violated a few physical laws to accomplish it, but hey... we can't let _that- stand in the way of technological progress, right?)

    1. Re:HIgh bandwidth is easy... by ffejie · · Score: 2

      I love the dumptruck analogy, but I'm not convinced of the math. Let's see if we can work it out:

      A dumptruck has a volume of approximately 722 cubic feet (17 x 8.5 x 5) source. Converting that gets us 1,247,616 cubic inches.

      A harddrive is 3.5" x 102 mm x 25.4 mm source. Or about 14 cubic inches.

      This means that roughly, we can fit about 89,115 hard drives into a dumptruck, assuming everything fits perfectly.

      The largest commercially available 3.5" harddrive is 3 TB. This means that we're going to have 267,343 TB on our truck.

      Driving across the country takes 26 hours assuming no stopping. Source

      This yields 267,343 TB / 26 hours = 2,138,744 Tb / 26 hours = 2,138,744 Tb / 93,600 seconds = 22.849 Tbps = 22,849 Gbps.

      Compare that to a commercially available 10Gbps link available from any business class provider, and you're going to trounce them. The latest stuff is 100Gbps, which you should be able to get a hold of if you're willing to shell out right now, but it's still a blow out. You are indeed correct.

      A couple of other items to note:
      1. You can add a day at the front and a day at the back to load and unload the truck and you're still around 10 Tbps.
      2. If you add another 2 days to collect all the data, write it to harddrives and then do the same 2 day process at the back end, you're still around 5 Tbps.
      3. A more fair comparison is probably not using such a slow mechanism like a dump truck (I understand it's there to prove a point in your analogy). But instead use a cargo plan. You'll get 23,200 cubic feet of storage out of a Lockheed C-5 Galaxy cargo plane which is about 32 dumptrucks. Also, you can get across the country in 6 hours, even assuming some landing and takeoff. If you still assume it takes several days to load and unload the plane, you'd probably be up in the 1 Pbps range.
      4. I was trying to think what would be the fastest way to load and unload the truck, and then I realized I was insane for trying to calculate such a dumb thing. The real answer here is to build storage arrays on the truck and have it roll back and forth. Essentially, it's a mobile data center. You have a few hundred 10 Gbps ports on the rear of the truck to plug in, and you can download all of your data on and off of it pretty quickly, without manual labor beyond plugging in a port. Further, this would be a very fun way for the Pirate Bay, or someone similar to distribute data if they ever wanted to go physical (and thus blatantly break the law). Once a week, the Pirate Bay truck would roll into town and all the kids could plug in the back to download petabytes of information before it leaves for the week. A fun concept, if nothing else.

      --
      Disagreeing with me does not mean you get to mod me troll.
    2. Re:HIgh bandwidth is easy... by xkuehn · · Score: 1

      Assumption fail. Volume is not necessarily a limiting constraint. Hard drives are dense.

      According to this http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_gravel_can_a_dump_truck_hold a dump truck can typically hold 13T. I've googled the weight of a 3.5" hard drive and I get values between 400g and over 1kg. So I weighed an old one, and got a bit over 400g. The 400g drives are those with fewer platters, but I'll go with it for simplicity.

      13,000kg / 0.4kg gives you 32,500 hard drives. Continuing with your calculations, 3TB*32,500 = 97,500TB = 780,000Tb. (According to 'man units', hard drive manufacturers use SI units.) 780,000Tb/26h = 780,000Tb/93,600s = 8.333Tb/s or 8333Gb/s.

      You'll get 23,200 cubic feet of storage out of a Lockheed C-5 Galaxy cargo plane which is about 32 dumptrucks.

      23,200*(12^3)/14 * 0.4kg ~= 1,145,416kg The plane can hold a maximum of 81,600 kg. And fuel economy is horrible.

      Not that I disagree with your general point.

    3. Re:HIgh bandwidth is easy... by PlazMan · · Score: 1

      Driving across the country takes 26 hours assuming no stopping. Source

      I think you meant 50 hours.

  11. Why bother... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They'll just cap it anyway. :( I wish i was joking.

  12. Speed or power? by GooberToo · · Score: 2

    Isn't the limiting factor for current bandwidth power rather than speed anyways? My understanding they've long had the technology for much high bandwidth but the limitations are always power demands.

    Secondary to power is usability. There's a big difference between pointing an antenna in the general direction of home and precisely aiming a laser million of miles away. Several orders of magnitude more accuracy is required.

    Personally I don't find anything practical about this project. At least not today.

    1. Re:Speed or power? by Migraineman · · Score: 1

      [INT. ENTERPRISE BRIDGE]

      Picard: Mr. LaForge, we're having trouble receiving the signal from the Very Far Away Observatory. Can you boost the signal.
      LaForge (v.o.): Sir, we're already using a holographic multi-modal optical receiver.We're operating near the theoretical limit.
      Picard: Prehaps you could route secondary power through the replicators in the galley on deck 12.
      LaForge (v.o.): Uhm ... yeah ... I'll get right on that. LaForge out.


      Power v. Bandwidth is always one of the spacecraft design tradeoffs. For signals with really low power at the receiver, smaller bandwidth can be beneficial because you can use filters (physical and DSP) to improve your SNR and your chances of recovering your data. Generally, you can't evaluate each piece in the comm link individually. The trick is to find a solution that meets your power budget, link budget, bandwidth objective, mass budget, volume budget ... all simultaneously.

      If you want some interesting docs on space communications, check out the pubs from the CDSDS.

  13. Re:Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids by mbone · · Score: 2

    Because most space probes now-a-days are data rate limited. LRO, MRO, Dawn, etc., all could take more data, if we could get it back.

  14. how will we talk to the aliens? by decora · · Score: 1

    if they are trying to send us a new video of their greatest pop star, how will we be able to download it in a reasonable amount of time?

  15. yea go for it by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    Interplanetary IRDA is just as dumb and useless as it is here for the exact same reasons

  16. Re:DNA porn by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    of course a slashdot reader would think anything of the "molecular biology" type of sexual entertainment would involve high bandwidth and looking at a monitor. I could think of another way that involves another person.....

  17. Bummer by vvpt · · Score: 1

    Sounds like inter-planetary multi-player Quake is still out of reach.

  18. Interstellar Bandwidth Auction by retroworks · · Score: 2

    Rather than actually doing it, couldn't we just auction the interstellar bandwidth to Google, Verizon, ATT, Sprint, etc.? Then we'd close the federal deficit! Centuries from now, they'd make the money back on roaming charges. We've been passing the buck to our kids, time to exploit the great-great-great-grandkids.

    --
    Gently reply
  19. Re:Interstellar Bandwidth Auction (spectrum) by retroworks · · Score: 1
    --
    Gently reply
  20. It's not the bandwidth it's the latency by davidwr · · Score: 1

    OK, maybe bandwidth is an issue but latency is still a bear.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  21. Interplanetary Internet by rlseaman · · Score: 1